Following the abandonment of a motion by the bankrupt seeking annulment of her bankruptcy, secured creditors sought substantial indemnity costs against the bankrupt, her husband, and her counsel.
The court held that under Rule 37.09(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, responding parties are presumptively entitled to costs where a motion is abandoned unless good cause exists to order otherwise.
No such cause was established, as the evidence showed the motion lacked merit and was withdrawn after cross‑examination revealed the evidence would not support annulment.
However, the court declined to impose costs against the husband or counsel, finding insufficient evidence that they caused unnecessary costs or acted improperly.
Partial indemnity costs were awarded against the bankrupt in amounts the court found fair and proportionate.
